With all the scientific evidence that refutes evolution how can anyone profess...

D

dmac338

New member
First I'd like to point out how funny it is that all of your "evidence against evolution" is a bunch of stuff that has NOTHING to do with biology and is only intended to make it look like evolution hasn't had enough time to work. Of course we all know why that is; evolution has been biologically PROVEN. Now I'm no scientists but I can refute a couple of these:

3. Eight inches of topsoil, eh? And it takes no more than 1,000 years to form one inch. Interesting. So if we do some simple math, that means that eight inches of topsoil takes no longer than 8,000 years to form, correct? Well, you're forgetting one PRETTY IMPORTANT FACTOR. SOIL DOES NOT STAY EXACTLY THE SAME FOR TENS OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS. The topsoil is only, you guessed it, the soil on the TOP. So then when new soil is formed ON TOP OF IT, IT'S NO LONGER THE TOPSOIL. The eight inches of topsoil in my yard today is the topsoil right now, but the next eight inches down would have been topsoil tens of thousands of years before that that has passed into the next stage and the next layer of soil. You IDIOT...

4. That's assuming it's been moving at this exact same speed since its creation, which I find to be a RIDICULOUS thing to assume.

5. Same as above.

"If you read Darwin's books you get the feeling that..."

Uh, no buddy, YOU get that feeling. This is kinda funny because anybody who reads your crap can go read Darwin's writings for themselves and see how full of sh*t you are. Yes, Darwin thought that his theory of evolution through natural selection was hard to believe and SEEMED a bit silly, UNTIL YOU LOOK AT THE SCIENCE BEHIND IT. THEN it doesn't seem silly anymore. THAT's the point he was trying to make, you dolt.

"Oh, they didn't find any transitional forms"

Tiktaalik. Archaeopteryx. Sloth bear. You fail. The list goes on and on, and again, this is extremely funny because any dumba$$ can look up all the transitional forms on the internet with pictures and everything. Basically, people can read your idiotically ignorant rant and do the one thing that you obviously didn't do before you opened your mouth (so to speak); RESEARCH.

Did I mention you fail?
 
...that evolution is good science? When scientists examine the theory of evolution as it relates to their respective areas of expertise which include; astronomy, biology, geology, physics, paleontology, genetics, botany, etc. they come up with some interesting facts that refute The Theory of Evolution.

For example,

1. The Earth's Electromagnetic field is decreasing by half every 1400 years and would have liquefied the earth just 20,000 years ago. (TEH p. 139)
2. Of the 51 primary elements contained in seawater, 20 could have accumulated in their present concentrations in 1,000 years or less, 9 additional elements in no more than 10,000 years, and 8 others in no more than 100,000 years. (TEH p. 148)
3. Topsoil accumulates at the rate of about 1 inch per 300 to 1,000 years and there is an average of about 8 inches of topsoil on the earth. (TEH p. 145)
4. The Moon moves farther and farther away from the earth each year and would have been close enough to crash into the earth less than 30,000 years ago. (TEH p. 134)
5. The Sun is shrinking and would have been so large and so hot only 50,000 years ago that it would have caused the oceans to boil. (TEH p. 128)
6. The giant sequoias of California have no known enemies exept man . . . they live on century after century . . . yet they are never older than 4,000 years. (TEH p 149)
Yet, the beat goes on and it's living proponents continue to claim it is scientific.
Darwin sat on his findings for more than two decades and I think people of the evolutionary persuasion prefer that we believe that he was being cautious but when you read his books you get the feeling that he was searching for the truth among alot of bad ideas and hoping that the proof would eventually materialize. He thought people with small hands could work with their hands and that this would result in big handed babies. He theorized 'an organ affected by the environment would respond by giving off particles that he called gemmules. These particles supposedly helped determine hereditary characteristics. The environment would affect an organ; gemmules would drop out of the organ; and the gemmules would travel to the reproductive organs, where they would affect the cells.' (TEH p. 27) Since he didn't know about DNA he was convinced they would find a fossil of an animal that would show the transition from one animal into another. In his way of thinking, a fish fin would grow just a little bit longer in one fish, that fish would meet another fish with the longer more desirable fin, they would have a baby with the bigger fin, the fin would eventually grow into an arm, etc. a fish would become an amphibian, an amphibian would become a reptile, etc. etc. and somehow the gemmules would turn the monkey into a man. I think he was waiting for the proof, hoping someone would find one of these mythical transitional, half-fish, half-amphibian creatures which they call 'missing links', but they didn't find on in Darwin's lifetime and they have collected and catalogued over 100 million fossils of 250,000 species since and still not found one. (TEH p. 423)
They want you to think they have some! When I was a kid in the 60s I remember reading about the missing links that they had found in the books in my second grade library. Piltdown man, Java man, Nebraska man. But, none of them were 'real' missing links. Piltdown was a hoax. Java man was a gibbon (a monkey). Nebraska man was a pig. Today they tell us about Neanderthal man who is human, Lucy who is a monkey, Arvi who is another monkey, etc., etc., etc. Oh, well.
As far as I am concerned they can still refer to Darwin as the Father of Evolution but I doubt that he would want the title if he knew what our scientists know today since he wasn't really that sure and DNA would have caused him to pitch his gemmule theory but he probably shouldn't get it since he wasn't the first person to come up with the idea. Oh, perhaps you didn't know that the first person to begin thinking ABG (Anything But God) was Anaximander (610-546 BC). Back then they called it The Philosophy of Evolution.
Source(s):

The Evolution Handbook by Vance Ferrell contains over 3000 scientific facts and is available in book form and online at www.evolution-facts.org
 
Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

The author of this frank statement is Richard Lewontin of Harvard. Since evolution is not a laboratory science, there is no way to test its validity, so all sorts of justso stories are contrived to adorn the textbooks. But that doesn't make them true! An evolutionist reviewing a recent book by another (but more critical) evolutionist, says:

We cannot identify ancestors or "missing links," and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions.
 
Seeing as most of your collection of questions pertain to geology and physics you are rather off track.
The Piltdown Man, most of us knew it was a fraud in the late fifties.
There are thousands of transitional fossils, go to your local museum or university and ask.

No scientist has ever refuted evolution, amended and added to our knowledge of it, sure, but not refuted it.

Post your evidence in the science category for answers to scientific questions.
I just don`t believe in any gods.
 
None of those 'facts' have been published in peer-review journals nor do they have any credibility in the scientific community. Your 'evidence' fails.
 
Everything you posted has been laughed at by reputable scientists. Just because you can cut and paste doesn't mean you have a brain.
1) Absolutely wrong. Changes in the earth's electromagnetic field are barely measureable.
2) No baseline data. If you start with the wrong assumption, you WILL get the wrong answer
3) Ever heard of wind and water erosion?
4) The bit about the moon is totally wrong. It moves away from the Earth less than one milllimeter a year.
5) Who told you the sun is shrinking?
I give up. Being around this kind of idiotic misinformation is painful.
 
it is funny how you seem to take HALF of the story, and make your claims, where the other half shows how the situations started, like the moon
try doing research on "earth mock 1" and "earth mock 2"
 
Funny how there isn't a single paper in any journal. Just made up crap from websites that real scientists laugh at.
 
This is more pathetic than I am capable of expressing. Let's analyze your idiotic claims.

1. The Earth's Electromagnetic field is decreasing by half every 1400 years and would have liquefied the earth just 20,000 years ago. (TEH p. 139)

Except the Earth's electromagnetic field fluctuates as it switches poles every couple of tens of thousands of years. So it rises and falls.

2. Of the 51 primary elements contained in seawater, 20 could have accumulated in their present concentrations in 1,000 years or less, 9 additional elements in no more than 10,000 years, and 8 others in no more than 100,000 years. (TEH p. 148)

Could have? And?

3. Topsoil accumulates at the rate of about 1 inch per 300 to 1,000 years and there is an average of about 8 inches of topsoil on the earth. (TEH p. 145)

And as we all know, that topsoil is immovable. Once it is there, it STAYS there! Erosion does not touch it!

4. The Moon moves farther and farther away from the earth each year and would have been close enough to crash into the earth less than 30,000 years ago. (TEH p. 134)

While the moon is indeed moving further out, the rate that you give is complete bullshit. The actual time we are talking about comprises billions of years.

5. The Sun is shrinking and would have been so large and so hot only 50,000 years ago that it would have caused the oceans to boil. (TEH p. 128)

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/pscf/1986/PSCF9-86VanTill.html

6. The giant sequoias of California have no known enemies exept man . . . they live on century after century . . . yet they are never older than 4,000 years. (TEH p 149)

Really? I would think wear and tear and gravity and forest fires would qualify as natural enemies, too. Plus simple AGING. Trees age too, you know.

* a fish would become an amphibian, an amphibian would become a reptile, etc. etc. and somehow the gemmules would turn the monkey into a man. I think he was waiting for the proof, hoping someone would find one of these mythical transitional, half-fish, half-amphibian creatures which they call 'missing links', but they didn't find on in Darwin's lifetime and they have collected and catalogued over 100 million fossils of 250,000 species since and still not found one. (TEH p. 423)

Um. You mean like Tiktaalik? Or more like Acanthostega?

* They want you to think they have some! When I was a kid in the 60s I remember reading about the missing links that they had found in the books in my second grade library. Piltdown man, Java man, Nebraska man. But, none of them were 'real' missing links. Piltdown was a hoax. Java man was a gibbon (a monkey). Nebraska man was a pig. Today they tell us about Neanderthal man who is human, Lucy who is a monkey, Arvi who is another monkey, etc., etc., etc. Oh, well.

If anyone really wrote that, they should be locked up for their own, but mostly for our safety. Because they are genuinely too stupid to walk out on the streets.
You would not have read about Nebraska Man (1921) or Piltdown Man (resolved in 1953) in the 1960s because they were ancient history by then. So he is simply a dirty, filthy lying bastard.
Nebraska man... that lasted all of two months, and it was the reporters who did it, not the scientists.
And Java Man was, as pretty much anyone who knows anything about anything agrees, a Homo Erectus. The skull, however, is lost.

* As far as I am concerned they can still refer to Darwin as the Father of Evolution but I doubt that he would want the title if he knew what our scientists know today since he wasn't really that sure and DNA would have caused him to pitch his gemmule theory but he probably shouldn't get it since he wasn't the first person to come up with the idea. Oh, perhaps you didn't know that the first person to begin thinking ABG (Anything But God) was Anaximander (610-546 BC). Back then they called it The Philosophy of Evolution.

Yeah. But now it is science. And you are right about Darwin, because he was a desperately timid man who had a good idea and worked very hard to confirm his suspicions.

And he was right. And you are wrong.

You got owned by a man who's been dead for over 130 years. How does it feel?
 
Vance Ferrell is nothing more than an apologist. All he does is rehash the same old arguments that have already been defeated years ago (irreducible complexity, argument from incredulity, multiple strawmen, etc.)

Here is a decent discounting of "his" ideas:

http://home.nctv.com/jackjan/item19.htm
 
Is it me or is this guy mostly copying things from Answers in genesis and the likes?

Also, sorry to tell you that, but Tiktaalik was found, the moon only moves a few centimeters away per year. Please, PLEASE post this in the biology and astronomy section!

I would love to see your tentative of an argument fall and crumbles.
 
1) The Earth's magnetic field is fluctuating: This has been known as long as it has been known that it is presently decreasing: For Ferrell to build an incorrect conclusion from the one fact while ignoring the other fact is sufficient evidence that Ferrell is engaging in fraud, lying, and not to be taken seriously.

2) & 3) Examples of Creationists ignoring equilibrium effects, both of which have been debunked before Ferrell was born.

4) & 5) Amazingly not a single astronomer or astrophysicist has noticed this: Could Ferrell be lying yet again?

6) "The giant sequoias of California have no known enemies exept man" lofl.

Lengthy para attacking Darwin for errors, even if credible (and Darwin did believe that in addition to Natural Selection that Lamarckian adaptation played a role in evolution. This was shown to be incorrect.) is the Ad Hominem fallacy, nothing more: The standard model must stand or fall on its own merits, not on Darwin. Use of the Ad Hominem Fallacy is normally seen as an implicit admission of weakness of case.

Unless the "Books" in your "second grade library" were Chick Tracts I do not believe your lovely little story one bit.

Nonsense like this will get you nowhere.
 
Back
Top